How Bad Is Biden’s Slump? - Political consultants vary in their views of what caused it, and how the President can recover. - link
Instagram for Kids and What Facebook Knows About the Effects of Social Media - A Senate-committee hearing will address whether Facebook is following the example of Big Tobacco. - link
Trump Still Faces a Reckoning in New York - Court documents and interviews indicate that the Manhattan District Attorney is accumulating evidence of pervasive tax fraud. - link
The Challenge of Making an Archive of the Climate Crisis - Amy Balkin collects artifacts of sea-level rise, erosion, and glacial melting. Anyone anywhere in the world can mail in a contribution, as long as it weighs half a pound or less. - link
Ben Simmons and the Acceptance of Failure - Wherever the N.B.A. star goes next, he will likely need to become more comfortable doing things he’s not good at. - link
From Vox
The refreshing, bad romance of Venom: Let There Be Carnage -
It’s Venom! | Courtesy of Sony Pictures
What superhero movies can learn from the campy alien symbiote.
Twelve years ago this month, Italian American singer, songwriter, and actress Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta gave us a ballad about the erotic thrill and vampiric pain of loving someone who is terrible for your existence. Doubly terrible if that someone is also your best friend.
“I want your horror. I want your design. ’Cause you’re a criminal as long as you’re mine,” she sang on her No. 1 hit “Bad Romance,” which channels Hitchcock a few bars later. “I want your psycho, your vertigo shtick. Want you in my rear window, baby, you’re sick.”
It’s not specified if Germanotta was crooning about an alien symbiote. But after watching Venom: Let There Be Carnage, I’m convinced she should have been.
Directed by Andy Serkis, Venom: Let There Be Carnage — unofficially known as Venom 2 — is the grimy sequel to 2018’s $850 million hit story of a man named Eddie Brock who meets and is subsumed by a shape-shifting alien life form. That alien, the titular Venom, is more parasite than being and cannot exist on his own; he must bond with a human to continue living. But when he meets Eddie, who is played by Tom Hardy, Venom’s survival becomes less about utility and more about bending to emotional attachment. It’s a love story.
With that foundation set, Serkis’s sequel leans further into the Eddie-and-Venom dynamic, showing us life beyond the honeymoon phase of alien-human bonding. Eddie’s world isn’t open-minded enough to accept a fully consensual human-symbiote pairing. Fearing exclusion and even imprisonment, Eddie and Venom retreat into the metaphorical closet. Eddie pretends Venom doesn’t exist, straining their relationship when Venom’s wants and needs — human flesh and, inexplicably, chocolate — become too fearsome to ignore. It takes an emotional toll on both Eddie and Venom.
Perhaps it just comes with the job. Maybe you can’t save the world if you have competing priorities; Wonder Woman, Captain America, and Iron Man all have made this point. Maybe superheroes are destined to live lonely lives. But Venom 2 dares to ask what would happen if superheroes didn’t have to be so alone. Maybe it’s as Germanotta sang, a destined bad romance — but that’s a romance nonetheless.
Venom 2 is about the luck of finding your soulmate — and the give-and-take of long-term relationships
Courtesy of Sony Pictures
Eddie <3 Venom 4-ever.
Serkis sets Venom 2 at a ballistic pace — so much that I think the 90-minute runtime feels generous. There’s no exposition, no world-building, no long-winded villain speeches about motivations. It’s just high-velocity Venom, via a plot about a serial killer who’s accidentally imbued with a variant strain of the symbiote.
On its face, Venom 2 is a no- frills, rock-and-roll superhero flick that unashamedly swings for the fences when it comes to camp and cheese. Yet beneath those elements, it’s strangely about finding love and the intimacy of relationships, building on the rom-com core of the first movie.
We catch up with Eddie and Venom still living in a one-bedroom apartment (do not quote me on this, because it could be a really big studio) in San Francisco. Eddie has transitioned back to print journalism after a stint doing independent viral video reporting in the previous movie. I suppose in Venom’s reality, print journalism thrives. Another quirk in this world: Print journalists do not seem to have editors, and answer only to themselves.
An alleged serial killer named Cletus Kasady contacts Eddie and asks for a one-on-one interview. As played by Woody Harrelson, Kasady is loony and maniacal. This is telegraphed to the audience because he sometimes speaks in haikus; we also learn that he told Eddie he suffocated his grandmother and electrocuted his mother in a bathtub when he was a kid. Since Eddie hides Venom from the outside world, Kasady doesn’t realize that his one-on-one interview — Kasady’s grab for fame and chance to indulge in his infatuation with Eddie —is a tag-team encounter with a hyper-intelligent and hypersensitive alien symbiote.
With Venom’s prowess, Eddie and Venom find Kasady’s burial ground and Eddie becomes mega-famous. However, their success leads to emotional conflict.
Ostensibly, Venom can enjoy the perks of his and Eddie’s collaborative success, but he needs more than just bylines and nice television sets to stay alive. Venom needs to eat human brains to keep his intergalactic metabolism going. Eddie can’t give him those, and only allows him chicken brains (attached to live chickens), which Venom scoffs at.
And even as Eddie’s journalism star rises, he can’t make himself desirable enough to his old flame Anne (reprised in Let There Be Carnage by Michelle Williams, who also reprises her wig from the first movie). She’s the only person in the world who understands Eddie and his relationship with Venom, and unfortunately, she’s moved on, at least in theory, engaged to her loyal boyfriend Dr. Dan (Reid Scott). She knows all too well that Eddie doesn’t have a lot of space for her in his life.
Their clash over cracking the Kasady case and Anne is just a symptom of a bigger problem between Eddie and Venom. Neither can meet the needs of the other. Eddie does not speak in Venom’s love language of fresh medullas oblongata. Venom cannot fathom the limitations of Eddie’s humanity or why he chooses to shrink himself by living as a tabloid journalist instead of living like a god. Because the two understand each other so well, Eddie knows he can hurt Venom by telling him he’s just a loser parasite from a different world, and Venom knows he can hurt Eddie by destroying the belongings that Eddie has finally earned.
While Kasady’s transformation into the mutant symbiote Carnage turns him into the movie’s titular villain, the real villain of Venom 2 is the fallout between Eddie and Venom. Learning to love each other is more important to Eddie and Venom than defeating the prescribed foe.
In exploring this strange romance, Serkis and Venom 2 tap into emotional territory rarely explored by superhero movies, no matter the studio. While superheroes often have girlfriends (or implied girlfriends) and boyfriends, those significant others rarely feel like anything more than accessories. They’re often flat characters, and that in turn makes their relationships feel hollow.
Because the focus of a superhero film is typically on some global threat and what the heroes must do to thwart it, we rarely get to see the needs, wants, or desires of the heroes’ loved ones, or how the consequences of those instincts and impulses affect them and their relationships. It’s a slice of humanity that’s missing from the people tasked with saving the world in movie after movie.
What other superhero stories could learn from Venom
Courtesy of Sony Pictures
Michelle Williams in a wig and Tom Hardy in a leather jacket in Venom: Let There Be Carnage.
The most fascinating and distinctive element of both Venom movies — more than their action, humor, and gore — is how hopeful they are about companionship.
While almost all superhero movies run on themes of personal sacrifice and putting everyone else first to save the world, Venom and Venom 2 emphasize, in their own unique and sometimes raunchy ways, that finding someone who completes you can make you stronger, better, and happier. Venom 2 in particular lowers its storytelling stakes: The goal becomes just getting through this life with a little more joy. The film suggests that finding your soulmate — whether they be romantic or platonic or symbiote alien parasite — can be just as important as anything else in the world.
Venom’s freedom to tell what is primarily a wacky relationship story comes from being self-contained. The Venom movies and all their camp, in contrast to Marvel’s endlessly interconnected cinematic universe, can exist simply on their own and in their own world. It’s difficult to imagine a typical MCU film making space for a wigged Michelle Williams to earnestly say lines like “I’m sorry about Venom,” like you would offer condolences to someone who got dumped, or constantly ask a frenetic Tom Hardy, in séance style, whether Venom is currently in the room. Not being part of something bigger allows Venom to take risks with its tone, humor, and scale.
At no point during either Venom movie are earth and all its citizens ever in danger, nor are Eddie and his symbiote the only obstacles that stand in the way between humanity and its sheer obliteration. In Venom 2, Carnage doesn’t seem like an unstoppable force; the movie never suggests that the only way to fight him would be to rope in more superheroes to help. In fact, both Carnage/Kasady and Eddie/Venom seem like they’d be fine never interacting with the world again if they could simply have their significant others and an endless supply of brains.
It wouldn’t hurt to see Marvel or DC make room to tell these kinds of more personal stories about their heroes. Or if they were to approach romance or deep friendship for those heroes, to really explore how being superhuman affects someone’s relationships, and consider the consequences of their global-scale actions.
We saw a bit of that in Marvel’s Disney+ series WandaVision, as Wanda Maximoff channeled grief over her dead husband Vision into a romantic fantasy that brought Vision back but victimized hundreds of other people. The storyline wasn’t without faults, but it made the character much richer, sympathetic, flawed and more human than she’d ever been in earlier movies. It showed that for as much as we love to watch superheroes save the world, their social and personal lives are what make them resonate with fans.
But as I wax nostalgic about Eddie and Venom’s bad romance, it’s worth keeping in mind Venom’s self-contained world may soon expand. The financial success of the first film and projections for the second may have already convinced the powers at Sony to open up a Spider-Verse where Tom Holland’s Spider-Man and Hardy’s Venom must collide, just like in their source comics. For now, though, it’s nice to be able to appreciate a superhero movie that understands how scary the world can be even if you have literal superpowers, and that there’s something beautiful in not going it alone.
Google’s plan to cut pay for remote workers who relocate is a bad idea -
A few companies are lowering pay for remote workers. Most are not. | Getty Images
You used to get paid based on where you live. That’s changing.
Google recently bet $2 billion that its New York workforce will return to the office. But to encourage its employees to actually make use of its massive real estate investments, some say the tech behemoth is using sticks, not carrots: Google employees who move to less expensive parts of the country could see their pay cut. In June, the company launched a tool for employees that showed how much less they’d be paid — anywhere from 5 to 25 percent, according to Reuters — if they move from somewhere like the Bay Area or New York City to a lower- cost location.
Many companies that employ the estimated 13 percent of US workers who are still working from home due to the pandemic expect to open their offices back up in January. Google is one of several notable tech companies, including Facebook and Twitter, that has enacted controversial plans to lower pay for remote workers who’ve moved away from the expensive areas where their headquarters are located. But there are signs these policies may backfire.
While potential repercussions for cutting workers’ pay may not be immediate, humans are highly susceptible to loss aversion — losses are more painful than gains are pleasurable — and pay cuts could cause workers to either leave or resent the company. Alienating your existing workforce is always a bad idea, but it’s especially badwhen tech companies are already struggling to find the workers they need.
Even though Google is a highly desirable employer, 53 percent of 230 verified Google workers said, in a survey for Recode that was conducted by workplace community app Blind, that they would think about leaving the company if they moved and had their pay cut. That’s a bit less than the 68 percent of all professionals on Blind who said so, but it’s still high. Googlers are also more likely (30 percent) to have moved outside their metropolitan area since the pandemic began than professionals at large (22 percent), and some Googlers have already shown a willingness to leave the company over what some of them have called hypocritical remote work policies.
Of course, there are other reasons keeping people at tech companies like Google — prestige, innovation, paychecks so big pay cuts don’t matter — but they might not be enough.
So why are these tech companies floating this idea in the first place?
Google, like many companies, says it has always based people’s pay on where they live. But one could argue that adjusting existing employees’ pay downward was a rarer instance before the pandemic, and that with an increasingly dispersed workforce doing the same labor, location-based pay is becoming a thing of the past. Thanks to remote work technology like Zoom and Slack, employees have been successfully working remotely for over a year and a half. During that time, Google has logged record profits. In turn, employees have enjoyed better work-life balance, shorter commutes, and the potential to live in places where their salaries can go much further. Remote work has moved from a perk that they’d willingly pay for to an expected benefit.
And most other companies have gotten the memo: Some 95 percent said they would not lower pay for fully remote workers, regardless of where they live, according to a survey of 753 organizations by compensation data company Salary.com. That’s because it’s widely understood that pay cuts are bad for worker morale, performance, and retention. That makes tech companies like Google notable outliers.
Beyond what these companies are saying, experts have a few theories for why they’re so far standing firm.
Foremost is that companies know office work works. Although they have seen that their workforce can be just as productive working from anywhere in the short term, they’re still unsure about remote work’s long-term effects on innovation.
“If all you care about is day-to-day productivity, then remote work is great,” Columbia Business School leadership and ethics professor Adam Galinsky told Recode. “But if you care about long-term commitment to an organization and collaboration among people, remote work is problematic.”
Pay cuts — or even the threat of pay cuts — might help maintain the status quo by disincentivizing people from moving to places where they couldn’t go into the office. But it will also likely have some unintended negative consequences for commitment and collaboration, which is precisely what these companies are trying to retain by having people come into the office.
“It’s particularly ironic because the entire reason why we want people to come back to the office is so they’re more committed, engaged, functional, collaborative members of the organization,” Galinsky said. “But if we force them into the office because of pay cuts, they’re going to come in hostile, resentful, and potentially rageful.”
There’s another reason for continuing location-based pay policies: equity in compensation. For example, not docking pay for a worker who moves from San Francisco to Boise, Idaho, might seem unfair to the person in Idaho already making less.
“What am I supposed to do, pay the Boise person more or pay you less?” Paul Rubenstein, chief people officer at Visier, which helps companies make HR decisions based on data, said.
Then there’s the economic rationale: Location-based pay models not only ensure a consistent rationale for paying tech workers in certain areas less than in others but also stand to save the company money. Not paying workers based in Idaho or India less could end up being very expensive for a global tech company.
“Once you start to do that, it’s like tugging at the thread on a sweater: Why do we pay people less than other markets? Why do we pay people less anywhere? Should there be one global salary for all?” Rubenstein said.
Indeed, the pandemic is causing location-based pay to become outdated, according to the salary comparison company Payscale, which also found that most companies don’t plan to lower pay for remote employees.
“What we do expect to see more broadly is a shift from employer- location-based pay strategies to pay strategies that can better accommodate a remote or distributed workforce,” Payscale CEO Scott Torrey told Recode.
That means instead of basing pay on where a company is headquartered and adjusting downward if people live elsewhere, more companies are adopting a national pay median for each position.
Nowhere is that happening faster than in tech, according to Gabriel Luna-Ostaseski, co- founder of Braintrust, a user-owned talent platform that connects companies with technologists, exclusively remotely.
“There is now a global market for their skills,” he said. “Enterprises will pay top dollar regardless of where those individuals are located.”
Additionally, smaller tech companies could swoop in with more generous remote policies as a way to punch above their weight.
That’s all to say that employees, especially ones at tech companies, have options other than having their pay cut. And employee turnover is very expensive, costing a company about a third of an employee’s salary, according to Salary.com CEO Kent Plunkett. Add that to the fact that he said 50 percent of workers — compared to the typical 25 percent — are thinking of leaving their jobs, and it seems like a very bad move for companies to reduce worker pay.
Given the situation, it seems Google feels it has the power and motivation to keep as many people as possible near its offices. However, several of the experts we spoke to also aren’t convinced that companies like Google will continue with these changes in the long run, or might only apply the policy selectively to weed out people it doesn’t want.
“I don’t believe that’s what they’re actually going to do when it comes down to retaining their top that wants to relocate,” Plunkett told Recode. “You’re not going to let your best talent go out the door over a $15,000-a-year pay differential.”
Although Google told Recode it has always adjusted employee salaries based on location, the current damage to employee morale might already be done. “Just because you work in tech doesn’t mean you’re magically enlightened in management styles,” Rubenstein said.
Why this Facebook scandal is different -
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in July. | Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Internal evidence that former Facebook product manager Frances Haugen shared shows Facebook has known — but ignored — the harm it causes.
On Sunday evening, a former Facebook employee who has previously revealed damning internal documents about the company came forward on 60 Minutes to reveal her identity.
Frances Haugen, a former product manager on Facebook’s civic integrity team, shared documents that were the basis of an explosive series of articles in the Wall Street Journal. The reports revealed that the company knew its products can cause meaningful harm — including negatively impacting the mental health of teens — but it still has not made major changes to fix such problems.
“There were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook. And Facebook, over and over again, chose to optimize for its own interests, like making more money,” said Haugen in the 60 Minutes interview on Sunday.
The employee also shared new allegations — not previously covered in the WSJ’s extensive reporting — about Facebook allegedly relaxing its standards on misinformation after the 2020 presidential elections, shortly ahead of the January 6 riots at the US Capitol.
In an internal staff memo obtained and published on Friday by the New York Times, Facebook’s vice president of public policy and global affairs, Nick Clegg, wrote that the responsibility for January 6 “rests squarely with the perpetrators of the violence, and those in politics and elsewhere who actively encouraged them.” Clegg also wrote that Facebook is not a “primary cause of polarization.”
Facebook has been mired in PR and political crises for the past five years. But this is a staggering moment for the company and the billions of people who use its products. Already, in response to documents revealed by the whistleblower, the company has paused development of its Instagram for Kids product, brought two executives before Congress to testify, and launched a PR offensive dismissing the Wall Street Journal’s reporting as “cherry picking.”
The whistleblower has also shared internal Facebook documents with lawmakers, and is expected to testify before members of Congress on Tuesday. The fact that the whistleblower is coordinating with lawmakers reflects how politicians on both sides of the aisle are viewing social media companies like Facebook with more concern — and they’re becoming more adept at scrutinizing them.
“This is the first time I can remember anything this dramatic, with an anonymous whistleblower, this many documents, and a big reveal,” said Katie Harbath, a former director of public policy at Facebook who is now a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Atlantic Council.
While plenty of Facebook employees have spoken out against the company anonymously or internally, only a handful — particularly at a high-ranking level — have ever spoken out on the record against Facebook. And never before have they revealed such detailed evidence that the company seemingly understands but ignores systematic harms it causes.
Nor has a Facebook defector had this kind of press rollout: first, a series of investigative reports with a major publication, then an unveiling on primetime television, and soon testimony before Congress — all within the span of just a few weeks.
Facebook has already responded to the allegations with a playbook defense, similar to its response to President Joe Biden’s criticism that the platform was “killing people” because of the spread of Covid-19 misinformation on the platform. The company and its leaders are arguing that the allegations are sensationalized and untrue, that information is being taken out of context, and that Facebook isn’t the only one to blame for the world’s problems.
And just like it did during the recent Biden and Facebook Covid-19 misinformation debate, Facebook has questioned the credibility of outside research on how its platforms function.
This time, the company went so far as to discredit some of its internal researchers’ findings about Instagram’s negative effects on teenagers’ mental health. Last week, it distributed an annotated version of the original research that was first published in the Journal. In its annotated slides, Facebook said that its researchers’ slide titles “may be sensationalizing” findings that Instagram can negatively contribute to teenage girls’ body image issues. The company also said the size of the study was limited.
The fact that the company is disputing the topline findings of its staff’s research shows just how damaging the reporting coming out of the whistleblower’s documents are, and how urgently the company is moving to change the narrative.
“It is a big moment,” said Yaël Eisenstat, Facebook’s former global head of elections integrity operations. She has been a vocal critic of the company since she left in November 2018. “For years, we’ve known many of these issues — via journalists and researchers — but Facebook has been able to claim that they have an ax to grind and so we shouldn’t trust what they say. This time, the documents speak for themselves,” she told Recode.
A key reason why this latest scandal feels more significant is that politicians on both sides of the aisle feel deceived by Facebook because they have previously asked CEO Mark Zuckerberg about Instagram’s mental health effects on children and teenagers, and the company wasn’t forthcoming.
In March, Zuckerberg told Congress that he didn’t believe the research was conclusive, and that “overall, the research that we have seen is that using social apps to connect with other people can have positive mental health benefits.” But he did not disclose the negative findings in the research cited in the Wall Street Journal reporting, including that 13 percent of British teenage users and 6 percent of American teenage users studied who had suicidal thoughts traced the desire to kill themselves to Instagram.
The company also didn’t share the research in response to two separate inquiries by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-MA), and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) when they asked for Facebook’s internal research on the matter after the March congressional hearing.
Some researchers working at the company feel “embarrassed” that Facebook dismissed the quality of its own staff’s work, according to the Times. Facebook, like other major tech companies, prides itself on hiring world-class researchers and engineering talent. If it further taints Facebook’s image in the engineering and academic communities, that could limit the caliber of employees it’s able to recruit.
“I think Facebook is miscalculating what a watershed moment this is, not just because the public now has eyes on these documents, but because employees are starting to get angry,” Eisenstat told Recode.
In the coming days, the attention around the whistleblower will likely shift to include her personal story: her background, what she worked on at Facebook, whether she has any incentive to share this information other than the public good, and how she might face legal challenges or even retaliation for her actions (Facebook executives have testified under oath that they will not retaliate against her for addressing Congress).
But the whistleblower coming forward is about much more than one individual. In revealing thousands of documents involving the work of many people at the company —which was subsequently largely ignored by top executives — this whistleblower has reignited longstanding debates both inside and outside the company about Facebook’s flaws.
“[The whistleblower] has provided an unvarnished and unprecedented look at the extent to which Facebook executives have knowingly disregarded the life-and-death consequences of their own products and decisions,” Jesse Lehrich, co-founder of the policy nonprofit Accountable Tech, told Recode. “And she’s paved the way for others to speak out.”
From The Hindu: Sports
England to decide on Ashes series in Australia this week - The tour is in doubt because of restrictions in place in Australia due to the pandemic.
Women’s cricket | Diana Edulji, Shantha Rangaswamy prefer ‘four-day’ Tests but want BCCI to restart red-ball cricket - Australia head coach Matthew Mott and England captain Heather Knight suggested the need for making women’s Test matches a five-day affair
Women’s Test | Mithali dwells on the positives - Excellent batting and good support from bowlers, says skipper
Morgan admits that he has been “short of runs” but expects some round the corner - Kolkata Knight Riders captain Eoin Morgan is the first one to admit that he has been woefully short of runs throughout the IPL but is confident of fi
Indian match official exposed again as 3rd umpire Srinivasan fails to spot spike - While the snicko showed a clear spike off the gloves, Srinivasan, who looked edgy and under-confident while taking mist decisions, to everyone’s surprise ruled it not out as well
From The Hindu: National News
May not be able to hear PIL against electoral bond scheme before Dussehra break: Supreme Court - “Friday [October 8] is the last day [before Dussehra break]. We may not be able to take it up [for hearing],” said the Bench
COVID-19 vaccine delivery through drones starts in Northeast - “We can use drones in delivering important life-saving medicines, collecting blood samples. This technology can also be used in critical situations,” Union Health Minister Mansukh Mandaviya said.
Three arrested in drugging, robbery case in Nizamuddin Express - The accused were nabbed from Mangala Express in Maharashtra
Need to focus on developing dual-use technologies: Defence Minister Rajnath Singh - “Countries around the world are focusing on military modernisation and demand for military equipment has gone up in view of global security concerns, border disputes and developments in the maritime domain,” Rajnath Singh said
Govt. plans to slap higher penalty for cruelty against animals; draft bill likely in next Parliament session - At present, perpetrators of such acts often get away unscathed as the penalty for the first time offender is just ₹ 50 under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960.
From BBC: Europe
Church sex abuse: Thousands of paedophiles in French Church, inquiry says - A commission finds evidence of 2,900-3,200 abusers within the country’s Catholic Church since 1950.
Lars Vilks: Muhammad cartoonist killed in traffic collision - Lars Vilks, who caricatured the Prophet Muhammad, was under police protection when his car hit a truck.
Milan plane crash: Eight dead as private plane hits building - The private aircraft went down soon after take-off, killing a Romanian billionaire and seven others.
Bernard Tapie: French tycoon, 78, died peacefully, his family said - The businessman, politician, showman and sports mogul was one of France’s most recognizable figures.
Kilogram of nails, screws and knives removed from man’s stomach - The man had begun swallowing metal objects after quitting alcohol, doctors in Lithuania said.
From Ars Technica
Making sense of Mazda’s MX-30 electric commuter car - This compliance car might be aimed at regulators, not regular people. - link
Elizabeth Holmes’ defense strikes back in cross-examination of lab director - Emails show director left “out of the loop” in hit-or-miss cross-examination. - link
The decreasing cost of renewables unlikely to plateau anytime soon - Early price forecasts underestimated how good we’d get at making green energy - link
The controversial quest to make cow burps less noxious - It’s not so simple as just feeding them gas-busting seaweed. - link
YouTube TV keeps NBC, won’t have to bundle Peacock as companies strike new deal - Update: YouTube TV and NBC agree to multiyear contract and avoid blackout. - link
/cdn.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22894407/venom23.jpeg)
Courtesy of Sony Pictures/cdn.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22894408/venom2.jpeg)
Courtesy of Sony Pictures
